home > resources > archive ACLU Reporter: Fall 2003 Read or download the pdf version >> Table of Contents Precarious Times for Civil Liberties ACLU Returns to Court Over “Main Street Plaza” Main Street timeline: How we got here ACLU of Utah Supports Freedom of Religion for Everyone Victory for Wendy Weaver SLC Civilian Review Board Gears Up My Years with the ACLU Principles, Power and the USA PATRIOT Act The Administration’s Campaign to “Sell” the USA PATRIOT Act PATRIOT Act II: Waiting in the Wings Airline Passenger Profiling: Back to the Drawing Board Again Support New Legislation to Fix the PATRIOT Act Abuses Utah Delegation in DC for First ACLU Membership Conference Supreme Court Decision on Sodomy Signals New Era for Gay Rights ACLU Celebrates Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties with Public Events ACLU of Utah Board of Directors Elections Be a Part of the Adventure: Join the ACLU of Utah Precarious Times for Civil Liberties From Dani Eyer, the Executive Director Dear Friends of the ACLU of Utah These are precarious times for civil liberties. The government can sneak into your home, peek at your private information and sneak away, without notifying you until they feel like it. The government is fallible. The government is holding in secret detention many against whom there is no individualized suspicion. At the behest of its own congressionally mandated internal report the Department of Justice is currently working on a better system to let people free who have been detained for more than 90 days for no reason. Godspeed. All post 9-11 reports analyzing government security failures point to a breakdown of communication in the intelligence community, not to any lack of law enforcement tools. Tools which incidentally violate fundamental constitutional rights of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of expression and due process of the law. Here in Utah we face erosions of civil liberties: variations on a theme of denial of free expression; new racial and religious profiling against Arabs and Muslims; impossibly overworked public defenders attempting to ensure due process for all individuals; judges ruling that basic freedoms do not apply to non- citizen immigrants; school authorities failing to honor basic student rights; and the perennial problem of public officials setting aside valid public policy to accommodate the desires of a dominant religion, in some cases, the desire to discriminate. To those few thousand of you in Utah who understand the importance of individual freedoms, thank you for supporting the unique American concept of basic civil liberties -- that which sets us apart from other nations. The ACLU of Utah will continue to work hard for you and for the Bill of Rights which thus far has stood the test of time and, more so than the flexing of power, has truly been a beacon for all the world. Sincerely, Dani Eyer Back to top ACLU Returns to Court in Controversy Over Free Speech in Salt Lake City’s “Main Street Plaza” On August 7, 2003, the ACLU of Utah returned to court in the controversy over the LDS Church’s ability to restrict free speech rights on the Main Street Plaza, maintaining that City officials have failed to respect the federal court ruling that the plaza is a public forum. The action was filed together with national ACLU. Salt Lake City is the defendant. “The City cannot simply decide that it is too much trouble to perform its basic governmental duty to regulate competing uses on a significant downtown pedestrian passage and public place,” states Dani Eyer, executive director of the ACLU of Utah. Rather than assume its obligation to regulate this space, the City acquiesced to the demands of the Church and created a powerful platform for the Church to promulgate its message on a range of social, political and religious issues while prohibiting others from sharing their own messages on the same issues in the same place and in the same manner. The plaza, where Main Street, Salt Lake City and LDS Church headquarters join, is the literal and symbolic intersection of church and state in Utah. In 1999 the City sold a block of Main Street to the Church. Because all public policy statements and documents had emphasized the need for pedestrian traffic on this downtown grid, the City retained an easement for public passage and access. The Church placed restrictions on speech and behavior on the plaza. The ACLU repeatedly warned that the restrictions were not consistent with the Constitution. Eventually the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the easement was a public forum with attendant First Amendment speech rights and struck down the Church’s restrictions. The Church appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to review the case. For the last year the City has struggled to find a solution to appease the desires of the Church to control expression on the plaza while honoring the community’s expectation of public use. After drafting rules attempting to regulate use of the plaza with the traditional tools controlling the time of speech, the place of speech and the manner of speech (time, place, manner regulations), the City learned that the LDS church was not interested in any kind of compromise, even one confining the easement to one narrow section furthest from religious buildings. The City then proposed swapping the downtown public forum for church owned land and financial contributions on the west side of town. On June 10, 2003 the City Council voted in favor of this resolution and the deal was finalized on June 28. In our current (second) lawsuit the ACLU is asking the federal court to look at everything surrounding the transaction to determine whether valid public policies were set aside by the City in order to accommodate the LDS Church’s desire to discriminate against people giving expression to ideas inconsistent with the ideas of the Church. “The bottom line,” the lawsuit claims, “is that city residents and visitors alike will continue to pass through the Plaza and be ‘funneled’ to the City’s central commercial and shopping district, but as they do so they will be subjected to the LDS Church’s point of view without the ability to respond with views of their own, at the risk of being jailed for ‘trespass.’” Mark Lopez, the ACLU national staff attorney who has worked with the ACLU of Utah on both Main Street cases, said, “When government shows a preference for one religion it sends a chilling message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, and not full members of the community.” The ACLU’s clients in the current legal action include two religious organizations -- the Utah Gospel Mission and the First Unitarian Church; two social activist organizations -- Shundahai Network and NOW of Utah; and an individual -- Lee J. Siegel. The First Unitarians, plaintiffs in the first lawsuit, held a Special Congregational Meeting and voted overwhelmingly to participate in the second suit. Even though the congregation is uncomfortable when it is confused with the street preachers whose behavior on the Plaza has been a great source of controversy, the Unitarians noted that participation in civil rights issues is not new to them, and that it takes courage to stand up for the rights of all. The Unitarians said that they want to defend free speech for all, stand up for those even more disenfranchised, and participate on equal footing with all religions and citizens in the community. This lawsuit is important for all citizens because in our car-oriented society there are fewer places for traditional public expression, a hallmark of our democracy, and courts are increasingly finding that we cannot relinquish downtown public property for almost any reason. Further, courts rule that the government cannot transfer public property to private entities for the purpose of circumventing constitutional mandates, as was attempted in the Civil Rights era in the South. Courts also look upon the transfer of public property to religious institutions with careful scrutiny, making sure that valid public policy is not set aside, and certainly not for the purpose of aiding discrimination against expression that is critical of one dominant religion. Because of the huge interest in the Main Street Plaza issue, we have created this page to collect all of our information on this page in an easy to view format. Back to top How We Got Here: The Main Street Plaza Time Line December 1998 SLC Mayor Corradini and LDS Church President announce proposal for City to sell one block of downtown Main Street for creation of Main Street Plaza. February 4, 1999 City report prepared for the first Planning Commission hearing stated: "A perpetual easement for 24-hour public access must be retained by the City from North Temple to South Temple within the existing street right-of-way. The easement should be designed and improved so as to maintain, encourage and invite public use." March 4, 1999 Public easement requirement was very first condition to the Planning Commission’s recommendation that City Council approve sale of Main Street. Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve sale of Main Street to LDS Church on condition that “there be no restrictions on the use of this space that are more restrictive than is currently permitted at a public park.” April 5, 1999 Closed meeting between LDS Church and SLC attorney where church states it must control activities. City begins to draft language acquiescing to church. April 9, 1999 SLC attorneys give memo to City Council with draft reservation of the public easement for passage and access by pedestrians and street closure, stating to public that it was “consistent with the concept approved by the Planning Commission” that the space be regulated like a public park. April 13, 1999 At City Council public hearing, no one from City attorneys draws attention to disappearance of the Planning Commission’s Condition 15 that “there be no restrictions on the use of this space that are more restrictive than is currently permitted at a public park.” During public comment a citizen-member of Planning Commission notes’the petition before you is not the same petition that was approved by the Planning commission.” Council votes 5-2 to sell Main Street to LDS Church. April 27, 1999 Mayor Corradini signs Special Warranty Deed, which provides for (1) City’s retention of easement and (2) extensive restrictions on conduct. Severablilty Clause states that if portion found to be unconstitutional, remaining portions are binding. May 5, 1999 ACLU sends letter to City requesting “that the City address at once a specific aspect of the transaction that plainly violates the United States Constitution, so that litigation can be avoided.” Explains nature of traditional public forum and effect the restrictions will have on the community. May 17, 1999 City letter to ACLU explaining that City has the authority to close or sell a public street. May 26, 1999 ACLU letter to City explains that city cannot skirt constitution by “declarative fiat.” With five pages of references and case law, letter warns they must deal with “these difficult issues; they will not go away by themselves.” Stephen Clark, ACLU Legal Director, further writes “I am willing to sit down with you to discuss the issues as well as the City’s and the LDS Church’s interests and concerns. Our collective goal should be to see whether a set of reasonable, constitutionally permissible, neutral regulations can be identified…we sincerely hope we will not be forced to resort instead to litigation.” November 16, 1999 ACLU files lawsuit against City for allowing LDS church to impose unconstitutional restrictions. January 2000 LDS Church intervenes into lawsuit as additional defendant. January 2, 2001 Federal court, District of Utah, rules in favor of City and Church calling the Plaza an “ecclesiastical park”. August 13, 2001 ACLU appeals Judge Stewart’s decision to Tenth Circuit. October 9, 2002 Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reverses lower court and rules that public easement is traditional public forum compelling First Amendment rights, and restrictions are unconstitutional. Court states that LDS church has no right to be free from competition or criticism. October 2002 Mayor Anderson vows that easement would not be transferred to Church. October 18, 2002 Letter to City from ACLU suggests “time, place and manner” regulations which can constitutionally control activity “accommodating competing uses of the easement, controlling the level and times of noise” and reminding that “the City may take the interests of the surrounding property owners into account in enacting regulations.” October 18, 2002 Anderson says easement not as important as guarantee of public access. October 24, 2002 LDS Church seeks Tenth Circuit rehearing; denied on November 14, 2002. November 1, 2002 Church urges Mayor to give up easement. November 10, 2002 Deseret News poll shows 64% of LDS Utahns say City should give up easement, while 73% belonging to another or no religion say city should keep public easement. Main Street Plaza moves beyond literal intersection of LDS Church headquarters and downtown Main Street to symbol of cultural and religious divide in community. November 16, 2002 Church disseminates expensive folder with full-page color inserts and letter from President Hinckley regarding “The New Church Plaza” to thousands of businesses and citizens. December 6, 2002 Mayor Anderson announces proposal to define easement narrowly to sidewalk on one side away from LDS Temple activity, imposing “time, place, and manner restrictions.” Proposal touted as giving Church 90% of its desires on plaza. December 16, 2002 Mayor Anderson, supported by the Alliance for Unity, proposes exchanging easement for land on the west side of City and fund for creating community center. December 17, 2002 ACLU delivers letter to City Council and calls for revising definition of demonstrations to meet Constitutional standards. Also warns that the city cannot abandon its consistently stated public policy to reserve public passage and access on plaza: “the Tenth Circuit observed that ‘the City has contended throughout this litigation that the City would not have agreed to the sale ”but for” the easement.’” Spring 2003 Numerous community council meetings held for City to pitch west side plan. Varying results. April 9, 2003 Planning Commission votes no on extinguishment of easement. June 3, 2003 ACLU sends letter to City Council on proposal to abandon public’s rights. June 10, 2003 City Council votes 6-0, with one abstention, to vacate the easement. June 23, 2003 US Supreme Court refuses to hear LDS church appeal. July 28, 2003 City and Church hold press conference to sign deeds and exchange land. August 7, 2003 ACLU brings legal action asking court to examine everything surrounding the transaction to determine whether city set aside its long-stated and valid public policy for pedestrian access and passage through the Main Street plaza in order to acquiesce to desires of LDS Church to continue to impose discriminatory restrictions on speech resulting in a violation of free expression and separation of church and state. Because of the huge interest in the Main Street Plaza issue, we have created this page to collect all of our information on this page in an easy to view format. Back to top ACLU of Utah Protects Freedom of Religion for Everyone The ACLU has a long and proud tradition of defending religious liberty. Americans enjoy a degree of religious freedom unknown in most of the world, and they take full advantage it: the United States is home to more than 1,500 different religious bodies and 360,000 churches, synagogues and mosques. The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most cherished fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution’s framers understood very well that religious liberty can flourish only if the government leaves religion alone. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees the right to practice one’s religion free from governmental interference. The establishment clause requires the separation of church and state. Combined, they ensure religious liberty. Because separation of church and state issues receive a lot of press attention here in Utah, we remind you that the principles we defend ultimately ensure freedom for everyone. Recall that recently the ACLU represented Mormon citizens in Texas who objected to government sponsored (usually Southern Baptist) prayers at the high school football games. After years in the courts, the Mormons and the ACLU prevailed on First Amendment theories of separation of church and state. Also recall that the ACLU sided with the Mormons and other religions supporting the right to proselytize door-to-door. Going all the way to the Supreme Court, a town ordinance was struck down that required registration and identification. In 2000, after a long struggle, President Clinton signed into law the bill that protects religious freedom from unfair government restrictions. The result of months of negotiation across party lines, and between groups that were traditionally pitted against one another, the law, introduced by Senators Hatch and Kennedy, was supported by more than 60 groups, including the ACLU, the Family Research Council, the Baptist Joint Committee, the Christian Legal Society, the American Jewish Congress, and Christian denominations ranging from Catholics to Mormons to Seventh Day Adventists. We will continue to work to ensure religious liberty for all people in America. Back to top Victory for Wendy Weaver Utah Supreme Court Decision Upholds Rights of Lesbian High School Teacher On April 4th, the Utah Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that brought an end to a five-year legal battle over the proper role of courts in determining whether lesbians and gay men can be fit role models and otherwise participate as full citizens in our society. The plaintiffs in the case, a group of Utah County citizens, had sought declarations that because Wendy Weaver is a lesbian she is unfit to continue her successful 20-year career as a teacher and coach at Spanish Fork High School. The Court agreed with the ACLU and rejected the plaintiffs’ claims as “improper . . . at the most fundamental level.” Stephen Clark, cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Utah, argued that what is at stake in this case is whether plaintiffs and others who share their views about homosexuality should be able to use the heavy hand of the law, with its criminal and civil sanctions, to punish what they view is a moral and spiritual failure. The Utah Supreme Court agreed with Weaver’s arguments and noted that any method for remedying school teacher violations already exists through the local school board, or the State Board of Education, which in this instance had taken no action against Weaver. The court also ruled that no private right of action exists for students and parents to enforce requirements for public school employees, that the court is not a forum for mere advisory opinions, and that it had no authority to fire Weaver or order the school board to do so. ACLU cooperating attorney Rick Van Wagoner pointed out, “the Court recognized its role in our system of government, acted in a restrained fashion within the bounds of that role, and recognized the proper role of the other branches of government in exercising responsibility and discretion, and withholding judgment, over the types of issues raised in the complaint.” Weaver, who now goes by her original name, Wendy Chandler, still teaches at Spanish Fork High, and was given the good news at school by her partner, Rachel Smith. Chandler commented, “all along, I felt that some people were vindictive toward me, but were also trying to set a precedent for taking action against any teacher they didn”t like. I’m glad that the Utah courts ruled that this was not proper. It is important for all teachers.” Back to top Salt Lake City’s Police Civilian Review Board Gears Up By Linda Hamilton, SLC Investigator Last year, Mayor Rocky Anderson proposed, and the City Council adopted, a new Police Civilian Review Board. The new ordinance provided significantly more authority to the Board than its previous incarnation. Differences include the authority to conduct investigations independent of the Police Department of allegations of police misconduct and a provision allowing persons who had filed a complaint with the Police Department and who are dissatisfied with the outcome to request that the Board review the case file. In the last six months, a full-time Administrator/Investigator has been hired. Board members have undergone rigorous training. A significant community outreach campaign is being conducted. Posters and brochures have been placed in 28 locations in the community explaining what the Board does and how to file a complaint. The printed materials are available in English, Spanish, Tongan, and Samoan. The Board is now functioning. It is investigating and reviewing cases of alleged police misconduct. If you or anyone you know believes they have been the subject of or witnessed police misconduct, you may contact the Board at 535-7230. Back to top From Laurie Wood, President of the Board of Directors The last few years that I have served as President of the Board of the ACLU Utah have been astonishing as I”ve witnessed more Utahns become aware of their liberties and the ACLU’s role in preserving them. Unfortunately, it usually takes crisis to bring about this awareness. Unfortunately, it usually takes having liberties threatened to make them appreciated. Nothing threatens our personal freedoms like the Patriot Act– along with Attorney General Ashcroft’s demand for even more powers. And although we value safety for our families– here as much as anywhere–we can no longer accept that safety can only come with a heavy loss of liberty. We must be vigilant about both safety and freedom. We can be both safe and free. As an educator, daily I am involved in engaging my students with the world around them–showing them just how important their citizenship in this country, of this world, really is. I value the academic freedom I enjoy, but I recognize that the liberty to question, criticize or disapprove of my government’s actions is tenuous. And therefore I value my ability to speak out even more and I commit myself–my time and my money–to assist in the protection of freedom of speech and freedom to assemble. I also commit myself to educating as many people as I can about the issues I value and that I am concerned about. The ACLU of Utah has also made education and awareness as its primary goals. If you”re reading this letter, then you”re probably already members of ACLU and have made yourself aware of the issues the ACLU is dealing with in Utah. If you”re not members–join now. But joining is not necessarily enough. You need to become as educated as humanly possible about the real and present danger to our liberties. Not dangers to someone else somewhere else, but to you, right here in Utah. And then you need to talk to your friends, your co-workers, your neighbors about the importance of becoming aware and becoming involved. The ACLU of Utah is growing–but it needs to grow even more. It takes much more than a dedicated staff and a dozen or so volunteers to keep up the struggle to protect our freedoms. Freedom cannot protect itself–it needs your help. Back to top Principles, Power and the USA PATRIOT Act (Cartoon used with permission by David Horsey) The USA PATRIOT Act (“Uniting and Strengthening America — Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”) has dramatically expanded the government’s authority to spy on ordinary Americans. Even before it was enacted, the FBI could conduct surveillance of those suspected of engaging in criminal activity or of working for foreign governments or terrorist organizations. The new surveillance powers make it easier for the FBI to spy on people suspected of neither, while reducing checks and balances on those powers including the ability to challenge government searches in court. Patriot Act’s first legal challenge In August the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the first direct constitutional challenge to the Patriot Act, specifically section 215, for its violation of privacy rights of all Americans, the threat to their First Amendment rights to say what they want, associate with the groups they choose, and freely practice their religion. Under section 215 the FBI has virtually unlimited power to obtain your medical and psychiatric records, demand membership lists from organizations and even, according to Attorney General Ashcroft, seize your DNA. Section 215 allows the FBI to obtain your records and personal belongings without having to show probable cause or any reason to believe that you have done anything wrong. It does not need to show that you are a terrorist or foreign spy. With the Patriot Act, the FBI can now force doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, Internet service providers and other businesses to turn over records on their clients or customers. Further, a person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that the government has examined their personal records. More secret searches For centuries, common law has required that the government can’t go into your dwelling without telling you, and must give you notice before it executes a search. The Patriot Act, in Section 213, allows the government to conduct searches without notifying the subjects, at least until long after the search has been executed. This means the government can enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when occupants are away, search through their property, download their hard drive, take photographs, and even seize their diary. These new “sneak and peek” powers apply to ordinary criminal investigations, not just terrorism. A 1978 law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for probable cause when the purpose of a wiretap or search was to gather foreign intelligence. The rationale was that since the search was not conducted for the purpose of gathering evidence to put someone on trial, the standards could be loosened. The Patriot Act expands this exception to cover wiretaps and searches that collect evidence for regular domestic criminal cases. These weak standards now apply to Internet information, tracking an individual’s website use, URLs, and even tracking ISP networking. Grassroots voices of concern Concern about the USA Patriot Act has continued to climb to new highs. More than 142 communities across the country and three state legislatures have passed resolutions opposing provisions of the Patriot Act. Even librarians have begun taking steps to warn patrons about and protect them the from the Act’s overbroad powers. This summer a congressional bill that would bar federal law enforcement from implementing the Section 213 “sneak and peek” delayed-notification search warrants passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. It still has to clear the Senate and the President before it becomes law. In August, Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation that would limit the Patriot Act’s Section 215, the FBI’s ability to gather library, bookstore and other records, stating, “we can protect both our nation and our privacy and civil liberties.” Even Utah Congressman Chris Cannon supports a bill introduced by another Republican that would require federal agencies to include a statement reflecting how any proposed new rules would impact the privacy rights of Americans. Principles, not power The rapid passage of the USA PATRIOT Act was the result of action based upon fear, without proper and thoughtful examination. History has shown that erosions of civil liberties based upon fear are later revealed to have been a grave mistake. People from across the political spectrum now repeat one refrain: If we give up our freedoms in the name of national security, we will have lost the war on terrorism. We American citizens should be and can be safe and free. We will prevail if we understand that liberty should never be taken for granted. As the US Supreme Court has stated: This is a country which stands tallest in troubled times, a country that clings to fundamental principles, cherishes it constitutional heritage, and rejects simple solutions that compromise the values that lie at the roots of our democratic system. Once Americans realize what they have traded away in the past two years for the illusion of increased security, they will regret the bargain their leaders have made, and they will demand change based on our core American principles, not based upon fear. Note: 40 more communities have passed an anti-PATRIOT Act resolution since this article was written. This article by Dani Eyer was reprinted with permission from Catalyst Magazine Back to top The Administration’s Campaign to “Sell” the USA PATRIOT Act to Americans On August 25th, Attorney General John Ashcroft blazed through Salt Lake City as part of a national whirlwind tour dubbed “Ashcroft’s PATRIOT Act Roadshow”. The Attorney General spoke to a select group of Law Enforcement and state officials in the ballroom of the Little America Hotel while outside, over 150 vocal demonstrators representing a wide cross section of U.S. citizens, including many ACLU supporters, raised a collective chorus saying "Bill of Rights - Yes! Patriot Act No!" Demonstrators outside Ashcroft’s speech. Police filming demonstrators One of the primary concerns with the tour is that it might have been designed to prop up other politically ailing legislative initiatives, including the expansive sequel to the PATRIOT Act, known as PATRIOT II, or the VICTORY Act, which contains four PATRIOT II provisions. Lawmakers and advocacy groups from across the political spectrum, including conservative mainstays like the American Conservative Union and Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, oppose both pieces of legislation. In an attempt to curb the growing opposition to the PATRIOT Act and PATRIOT Act II, the Department of Justice created a new website designed specifically to address critics of the act. The website was announced in conjunction with Ashcroft’s multi-city “roadshow.” The ACLU is a major focus of the website, which includes a section titled, “Dispelling the Myths.” But the ACLU maintains that the website only repeats the Justice Department’s now-familiar practice of misrepresenting the scope and impact of the law. In noting the misrepresentations, the ACLU is far from alone. As the Deseret News reported about Ashcroft’s stop in Salt Lake City, “groups spanning the political spectrum from the ACLU to the Eagle Forum dispute Ashcroft’s interpretation of the Act.” The ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal court in Detroit on July 30, 2003 on behalf of six advocacy and community groups from across the country whose members and clients believe they are currently the targets of investigations because of their ethnicity, religion and political associations. The lawsuit names Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller as the defendants. An ACLU legal observer checks out a confrontation with police officers during the demonstration outside of Ashcroft’s speech. Back to top PATRIOT Act II Waiting in the Wings On the second anniversary of September 11, President Bush announced his request to Congress for additional law enforcement powers. President Bush seeks to: -- Deny bail for terrorism suspects. -- Grant law enforcement authorities the ability to issue “administrative subpoenas’ in certain terrorism cases, thus bypassing all judicial oversight. -- Expand the federal death penalty for terror-related crimes that result in death. These new powers are also included in the draft bill that was circulated earlier this year--the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (PATRIOT Act II). While the bill has not been introduced, there is concern that, if adopted, it would severely undermine basic constitutional rights and checks and balances. Under an existing, overly broad definition of international and domestic “terrorism,” any individual or group that breaks the law with the intent of influencing the government can be labeled terrorist if their activities are “dangerous to human life.” PATRIOT II not only fails to fix this definition, it exacerbates these problems by connecting even move anti-terrorism powers to this definition. Other new powers include new wiretapping authority, civil asset forfeiture powers, and a frightening and unprecedented power for the government to revoke American citizenship even of native-born Americans. The ACLU is very concerned about the lack of accountability and expansive new powers granted by this legislation. Congress should not consider new legislation until the Bush administration outlines how the increased powers given under the first USA PATRIOT Act have been used. Our representatives must ask the Justice Department how and when the broad enforcement powers have increased our security against terrorism. Back to top Airline Passenger Profiling: Back to the Drawing Board Again The Transportation Security Agency (TSA) issued another description of its Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System II (CAPPS II) program, designed to perform background checks on the 100 million Americans who fly each year. This background check is supposed to determine each flyer’s “risk” to airline safety. TSA received fierce criticism for the sweeping nature of it first proposal in January 2003, made some revisions, and in August, issued a new notice of its intent to begin testing the CAPPS II program. The new version of CAPPS II was dressed up in the language of privacy and concern for freedom, but it failed to address the core problems and continues to pose an enormous threat to American freedom and privacy. Using easily falsified information such as name, home address, home phone number, and date of birth, this system would screen your name through credit databases and then run your information through secret government databases to make a judgment about you as a security risk. Based on this information, you may undergo special security scrutiny, or be referred to law enforcement and possibly detained. If you are branded a “risk” due to false information, the process for correcting the error is unclear and could result in significant delays or detention for many innocent people. In short, CAPPS II would involve the construction of an unprecedented infrastructure for conducting background checks on Americans when they fly, and making judgments about how “risky” each of us is—all in secret. CAPPS II would use information sources that are never disclosed, or subject to public oversight, and analyze that information using criteria that are also never disclosed or subject to public oversight. The bottom line is that we just don’t have enough information about this program to allay well-founded suspicions that all Americans would not share its burden equally. As a result of these concerns, Congress decided on September 24 to delay the start of the new system until an independent study of its privacy implications can be completed. The General Accounting Office will conduct the study, scheduled for completion on February 15, 2004. Back to top Support New Legislation to Fix the PATRIOT Act Abuses The ACLU joins with citizens and public officials across the political spectrum in welcoming bi-partisan legislation aimed to correct some of the most egregious provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Two years after its passage the movement to fix this un-American piece of legislation is gaining incredible momentum. Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) have now taken the lead in the Senate by introducing the bi-partisan Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act of 2003. This is a significant first step toward rolling back the PATRIOT Act’s worst excesses. Passage of the SAFE Act would not take away any of the new powers granted to the Department of Justice. Instead, the SAFE Act would balance these new powers with sensible safeguards. Specifically, the SAFE Act would: · Require individual suspicion for searches of library, bookstore or other sensitive records. · Place reasonable limits on “sneak and peek” searches. · Include safeguards for “roving wiretaps’ in foreign intelligence investigations. · Place a sunset on four additional powers and require additional reporting on USA PATRIOT Act powers. The SAFE Act would cause four powers to expire at the end of 2005 and would require additional reporting on “sneak and peek” searches and FISA records searches. The Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act was recently introduced in Congress. It would correct the “sneak and peak” provisions in section 213 and the personal records access provisions in section 215, The bill also addresses the monitoring of attorney-client conversations and guidelines permitting FBI agents to monitor houses of worship. Senator Feingold also introduced a bill limiting the section 215 power to gather library, bookstore and other personal records held by third parties. Hard situations, like the terrorist attacks of September 11, can also become the breeding ground for bad law. As voters and Americans, our support for legislation designed to fix the PATRIOT Act can make all the difference in turning back the sweeping and unnecessary federal powers. Please contact Senators Hatch and Bennett, and Representatives Cannon, Bishop, or Matheson and let them know it is time to fix the Patriot Act. Please Contact your Senators and Representative asking them to support S. 1709: Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act of 2003 HR3171: The Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act. Sen. Bob Bennett ph: (202) 224-5251 Sen. Orrin Hatch ph: (202) 224-5444 fax: (202) 224-6331 Rep. Chris Cannon Phone: (202) 225-7751 Fax: (202) 225-5629 Rep. Rob Bishop ph: 202-225-0453 fax: 202-225-5857 Jim Matheson Phone - (202) 225-3011 Fax - (202) 225- 5638 Back to top Utah Delegation Goes to Washington D.C. for First ACLU Membership Conference and Lobbying Day A strong delegation of ACLU of Utah Board members and one staff representative joined nearly 1,500 card-carrying members of the American Civil Liberties Union converging on the nation’s capital in June for the organization’s first-ever membership conference. The event was called a national rallying cry against the government’s determination to cut back on civil liberties in the name of national security. “We came to Washington to mobilize ACLU members to insure that Congress and elected officials at all levels hear that the American public does not want the government to trade off our freedoms for security," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Energized in Washington, this small army of ACLU members returned to their hometowns prepared to take their activism to the next level and working hard to mobilize their family, friends and neighbors in protecting the Constitution." ACLU Director Anthony D. Romero and ACLU President Nadine Strossen listen to speakers during the first day of the conference From across the country ACLU members of all backgrounds and ages traveled by the busload to attend the first national gathering of an organization whose ranks have swelled to over 400,000 -- an unprecedented 33 percent jump -- since the attacks of September 11.. "There is a reason our membership has grown so dramatically,” said Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office. “Our members reflect mainstream Americans who oppose recent security measures that go beyond combating terrorism, infringe on civil liberties and are of questionable effectiveness in meeting the threats facing a post-9/11 America." ACLU of Utah, Board President, Laurie Wood, shakes hands with Rep. Chris Cannon after a unscheduled meeting while participating in the first ever ACLU lobbying day in Washington DC The Utah delegation participated in an ACLU lobbying day on Capitol Hill and met with Representative Chris Cannon and a Legislative Counsel for Senator Bennett to discuss civil liberties concerns including Patriot Act II, Racial Profiling, the Victims Rights Amendment, and the Faith Based Initiative. On the closing day of the conference, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, sought to assure the ACLU members that protecting civil liberties is a core mission of the Bureau. Mueller faced tough questions from a respectful audience concerned about how the government is using the expanded law enforcement powers granted by Congress just 45 days after the September 11 attacks. Afterwards, ACLU Executive Director Romero said, “ we continue to believe that the Justice Department too often sees civil liberties and national security as mutually exclusive. At the end of the day, the ‘trust us, we’re the government’ defense is not sufficient in an open, democratic system.” Back to top Supreme Court Decision on Sodomy Signals New Era for Gay Rights in Utah and Nation In an historic decision with wide-ranging implications, the U.S. Supreme Court, on June 26th, struck down a Texas law that makes some kinds of sexual intimacy a crime, but only for gay people. The decision overrules the court’s 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, which was widely condemned for treating gay people as second-class citizens. It was hailed by the American Civil Liberties Union as a major milestone in the fight for constitutional rights. “Utah’s sodomy law can no longer be used to discriminate against gay people,” said Dani Eyer, Executive Director of the ACLU of Utah. “Even though technically the law has always applied to all couples, straight and gay, the courts and agencies have treated it as if it were a justification for discrimination against gay people. They can’t do that anymore.” "This decision will affect virtually every important legal and social question involving lesbians and gay men," said James Esseks, Litigation Director of the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. "For years, whenever we have sought equality, we”ve been answered both in courts of law and in the court of public opinion with the claim that we are not entitled to equality because our love makes us criminals. That argument - which has been a serious block to progress -- is now a dead letter." Esseks added, "from now on, cases and political debates about employment, custody and the treatment of same-sex couples should be about merit, not about who you love." In sweeping language, the Court said the Constitution protects the right of gay people to form intimate relationships and "retain their dignity as free persons." Gay people, the Court said, have the same right to "define one’s concept of existence, of meaning, or the universe, and of the mystery of human life," that heterosexuals do. The Bowers decision, the Court said, "demeans the lives of homosexual persons." Since 1986, lower courts have relied on Bowers v. Hardwick to take away or limit custody to gay parents and to uphold firing or refusing to hire gay people. Bowers has frequently been invoked in legislative debates as a reason not to protect gay people from discrimination. "With this decision, the Court has finally recognized that we are part of the American family. Now it’s time for the rest of society to do the same," Esseks said. "Our civil rights laws need to make the workplace fair, our schools safe, and to give basic respect to the relationships at the core of our lives--with our partners and our children. By acknowledging that we are not criminals, this decision will make it far easier for us to get society to change." In an 18-page opinion, the Court held that the Texas law violates the fundamental right to privacy protected by the U.S. Constitution. The decision means that similar laws against sexual intimacy in the 12 other states that have them are also invalid. These include laws in Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma that apply only to gay people as well as laws in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Utah, which make "sodomy" a crime for all people. "Justice Brandeis said over 75 years ago that the ”right to be let alone” is the right most valued by civilized people, and most Americans agree," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "This decision is all the more important because it comes at a time when the right to privacy is under one of the greatest assaults it has ever faced." The Court overruled its 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick in unusually strong terms. "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today," the Court said. Bowers was an ACLU challenge to Georgia’s "sodomy" law, which applied to all couples. In Bowers, the Court held that the right to privacy did not invalidate Georgia’s sodomy law. "Although Georgia’s sodomy law applied to straight and gay couples," said Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU, "the Court treated it as a case about the constitutionality of laws making same-sex intimacy a crime." The lower courts, Shapiro explained, "understood Bowers to permit discrimination against gay people in criminal laws and in many other areas as well. This decision establishes that the state has no place in anybody’s bedroom, straight or gay." The petitioners in Lawrence, two Texas men who were arrested after police broke into their home to investigate an anonymous tip that turned out to be false, were represented by Lambda Legal. Back to top ACLU Celebrates Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties with Public Events Around Utah On May 9th, the ACLU of Utah held an annual “Bill Of Rights Celebration” dinner at the new Salt Lake City Downtown Library. Over 300 ACLU supporters attended to hear Nancy Chang, the senior litigation attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City, and author of Silencing Political Dissent: How Post September 11 Anti-Terrorism Measures Threaten Our Civil Liberties. During the dinner we also honored the Multi-Cultural Legal Center with the ACLU of Utah Adam “Mickey” Duncan Award for volunteer services. The Multi-Cultural Legal Center is a unique non-profit organization whose mission is to use and strengthen Utah’s system of justice to ensure that racial and ethnic communities receive equal treatment and access to legal representation. Like many nonprofit organizations, the Multi-Cultural Legal Center is struggling financially, but they still are trying to provide legal expertise and advocacy in areas of law which significantly impact racial and ethnic communities such as discrimination, immigration, racial profiling, and hate crimes, and by working with existing legal service providers to make their services more accessible to communities of color. Since our big Gala, the Utah affiliate has held several fundraising parties like our special ACLU night at Saturday’s Voyeur, as well as house parties in Logan, the Avenues neighborhood of Salt Lake City, and in Utah County. We appreciate the strong support of all of our hosts and guests at these events. Another major focus of ours is to educate all of Utah’s citizens about their civil liberties and constitutional rights. Through speaking engagements, visits to public schools, interviews, and participation in community meetings, we inform and mobilize citizens on constitutional issues. Our hard work in the area of public education is fueled by the conviction that only when every citizen is informed of her/his rights will we be able to achieve the ideals set forth in the constitution. Our executive director and staff have made an effort to continuously engage the public on the importance of basic civil liberties. This interaction with our community is quite rewarding and an important aspect of our work. Our increased emphasis on education and outreach has allowed us to create community partnerships that have advanced our lobbying and advocacy efforts while diversifying our legal program. Back to top ACLU of Utah Board of Directors Elections The nominating committee has selected the following individuals to serve on the ACLU of Utah’s board of directors. Membership on the board of the ACLU of Utah requires that each director be a member of the ACLU of Utah and support the principles of the organization as described in its articles of incorporation and stated historical mission; participate fully in the development and implementation of policies established by the ACLU of Utah’s board of directors; accept responsibility, in collaboration with the ACLU of Utah’s executive director, for fund-raising; and determine and approve, upon recommendation of the legal panel and staff attorney, the ACLU of Utah’s docket. Tim Chambless (Incumbent) joined the ACLU of Utah’s board of directors in the beginning of 2000. He has served as vice president on the Board since 2002. After a three-year stint as intern coordinator for the University of Utah Hinckley Institute of Politics, he has returned to full time teaching as a professor within the Department of Political Science. In addition, he is researching and writing a book on investigative reporting, and serving as a member of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission. Jill Sheinberg (Incumbent) has been an active member of the ACLU of Utah’s board of directors since 1997 and is the current national board representative for the Utah affiliate. An attorney who specializes in mediation, employment discrimination, and nonprofit organizations, Jill was a board member of the ACLU Nassau Chapter and the New York State Civil Liberties Union before moving to Utah. Currently, she is active in the community, and is a board member of Planned Parenthood of Utah, Families Against Incinerator Risk, and the Adopt a Native Elder Program. Peggy Battin (Incumbent) is a professor of Philosophy and adjunct professor of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Ethics, at the University of Utah. Peggy originally joined the ACLU of Utah’s board in 1989 and, after a brief hiatus, rejoined in 1997. She has been or is active on the board level in many organizations, including the Death With Dignity National Center, the American Association of Suicidology, the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, the International Association of Bioethics, and the American Philosophical Association. Jennifer Schwartz has a professional background in both education and office management. She has taught elementary school, been an office manager and a director of operations and is currently working to open an alternative private school in the Salt Lake area. One of her passions is public speaking. She has spent several years training with Landmark Education and other organizations and is a very practiced public speaker. She hopes to use this ability, along with the missions and goals of the ACLU, to help educate people about their civil rights, our system of government, and how to organize and create change at both local and national levels. C. M. Contestable is an Episcopal priest and a full-time Master of Social Work student at the University of Utah. Her interest in the work of the American Civil Liberties Union derives of its non-ideological commitment to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Her commitment to the work of the ACLU emerges out of her experience with and relationship to members of marginalized, disenfranchised, or under-represented communities. Members of these communities depend upon the work of the ACLU for access to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights Emma R. Gross, PhD, MSW, is an Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of Utah. Her education is in political science, social science, and social work (University of Michigan); her teaching specializes in public policy and the making of social welfare policies and programs, diversity research, and public policy for children and families. Please mark and return this ballot to the ACLU of Utah Nominating Committee, 355 North 300 West #1, Salt Lake City, UT 84103 by Monday December 22, 2003. Joint members can vote individually. If you have any questions, please call (801) 521-9862 ext 100 or email aclu@xmission.com. Back to top Be a Part of the Adventure: Join the ACLU of Utah The ACLU of Utah continues to do groundbreaking work with very little resources. We could not keep up the fight if not for the support of folks like you, combined with our excellent Board of Directors, cooperating attorneys, staff, interns, and volunteers. As a private, nonprofit organization, the ACLU receives no government funding and never charges its clients for legal representation. Our existence depends entirely upon private donations, the rare foundation grant, court-awarded legal fees from successful cases, and membership fees from individuals who are dedicated to preserving the fundamental liberties provided for in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Historically, it is in times of crisis that the government takes advantage of a climate of fear and insecurity to enhance its own powers at the cost of civil liberties. Hanging in the balance are the basic guarantees of equal protection, due process, freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to privacy. We need your support now, more than ever, to continue to meet the many challenges to civil liberties that confront us almost daily. Membership dues and tax-deductible contributions to the ACLU provide the resources essential for a vigorous defense of individual liberty and equal justice. A strong, broad membership base enables the ACLU to weigh in on the important issues of the day and lobby for civil liberties and civil rights protections on both the local and the national level. Your support gives civil liberties and civil rights a voice that can be heard throughout the state and nation. Memberships start at $20 a year, are not tax-deductible, and are shared with our national office in New York City. Membership resources help fund our important work at the state legislature. You can also make a tax-deductible contribution to the ACLU of Utah Foundation that will go directly to fund our advocacy, education, and litigation efforts. Become a member today Back to top

ACLU OF UTAH UNION OR FOUNDATION? | USER AGREEMENT | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US © 2008 ACLU OF UTAH · 355 NORTH 300 WEST · SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 · T (801) 521-9862 · F (801) 532-2850